Stolen Asset Recovery

Greenberg, Theodore S.; Samuel, Linda; Grant, Wingate; Gray, Larissa

doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7890-8

Cited by 29 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This has been repeatedly observed by scholars (among others Greenberg et al 2009;Levi and Maguire 2005), 4 and practitioners (among others Charpenel, First Attorney General of the French Court of Cassation 2012; Eurojust 2012a). The same stance has also been shared by national and transnational political institutions (Commission of the European Communities 2008) 5 :…”

Section: Confiscation: Features and Implementation In The European Unionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity

Alagna¹

2014

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Confiscation: Features and Implementation In The European Unionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity

Alagna¹

2014

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Criminal forfeiture systems can be object-based, which means that the prosecuting authority must prove that the assets in question are proceeds or instrumentalities of the crime. Alternatively, they can be value-based regimes, which allow for the forfeiture of the value of the offender’s benefit from the crime, without proving the connection between the crime and the specific object of property (Greenberg et al , 2009).…”

Section: Initiating Unexplained Wealth Order and Non-conviction-based Asset Forfeiture In Indonesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas criminal forfeiture may not reach the property held by bona fide third parties, non-conviction-based asset forfeiture can forfeit the property from a third party without a bona fide defense. There is insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecution. In such scenarios, non-conviction-based asset forfeiture is possible because it is an in rem action against the property, not the person, or a criminal conviction is not required, or both (Greenberg et al , 2009, p. 15).…”

Section: Initiating Unexplained Wealth Order and Non-conviction-based Asset Forfeiture In Indonesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecution. In such scenarios, non-conviction-based asset forfeiture is possible because it is an in rem action against the property, not the person, or a criminal conviction is not required, or both (Greenberg et al , 2009, p. 15).…”

Section: Initiating Unexplained Wealth Order and Non-conviction-based Asset Forfeiture In Indonesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revealing the unexplained wealth in Indonesian corporation

Lukito

2019

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the unexplained wealth inside the corporation and to initiate and apply unexplained wealth order in the Indonesian corporation based on the Indonesian legal system and prevailing laws. An effective tool needs to be implemented because of the facts that numerous corporate illegal activities lead to economic and financial crime. Meanwhile, there are difficulties to implement the corporate criminal liability. Non-conviction-based asset forfeiture will be a way out to deal with the current condition. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores and analyzes the Indonesian legal system, particularly a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture for corporate illegal activities. This paper is based on the research paper conducted with the legal normative approach. Findings Non-conviction-based asset forfeiture through unexplained wealth order will be an effective tool and a revolutionary pattern in the crime prevention perspective dealing with corporate crime. Corporate criminal liability in anti-corruption regime can be viewed from two perspectives by combining and integrating crime prevention approach as well as the repressive approach. The Indonesian Supreme Court Regulation number 13 of 2016 is a breakthrough in the criminal justice system to redesign case handling procedure toward corporate crime. It needs to be supported by precise asset forfeiture law. Furthermore it is necessity to strengthening and built corporations with moral and ethical business values. Practical implications This paper can be a source to explore the unexplained wealth that can occur in the corporation and the way to overcome it through unexplained wealth order and non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Originality/value This paper contributes by initiating a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, which is implementing the in rem proceeding, to make sure the crime does not pay and the victim and society suffer less because of the corporate crime.

show abstract

“…This eases the burden on the government and means that it may be possible to obtain forfeiture when there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction. Because the action is not against an individual defendant, but against the property, the owner of the property is a third party having the right to defend the property (Greenberg, Samuel, Grant, & Gray, 2009). The substantial question is whether a link can be established between the property and criminal conduct.…”

Section: In Rem Forfeiture or Non -Conviction Based Forfeiturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Scope of “in Rem” Forfeiture under Nigerian Law: Issues Arising

Azi¹

2019

WJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some criminals might be content to serve time in prison, if they know their assets will be available upon release, orthat their families may continue to enjoy the proceeds of crime and this is why in rem forfeiture of assets is animportant mechanism that can be used to prevent this from happening. Indeed it has, generally, been used as aneffective tool to counter organized crime, drug trafficking and certain other crimes in Italy since 1956 and in theUSA since 1970. In rem forfeiture removes the tools of the crime from circulation thereby depriving the wrongdoer,his associates or family from benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Even though for now Nigeria does not have acomprehensive framework for in rem forfeiture, it is however recognized under various Nigerian Laws. This paperdiscusses in detail the legal framework of in rem forfeiture under Nigerian laws, the gaps as well as management ofseized or forfeited assets pending final forfeiture order. The paper posits that for any meaningful progress in the fightagainst corruption and the recovery of proceeds of crime to be made, anti-corruption and law enforcement agenciesmust continue to apply in rem forfeiture mechanism. The paper however emphasizes that civil forfeiture shouldnever be seen as an alternative or substitute for the institution of criminal proceedings when there is sufficientevidence to support such proceedings and where such proceedings would otherwise be justified.

show abstract

Stolen Asset Recovery

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity

Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity

Revealing the unexplained wealth in Indonesian corporation

The Scope of “in Rem” Forfeiture under Nigerian Law: Issues Arising

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About